it’s common sense that there’s only so many combinations of words in the English language. the sounds make up words, the words make up sentences, and the sentences make up books.
at the book level, ok the odds for one person to create the exact or similar writing is fairly slim. but if you have a sentence with a copyright, like some poets do online — odds are pretty high that thing has been said before. especially if it holds any sort of cliché.
which means that at that point, we might as well be copyrighting WORDS. like you know what? i want the word PANTY, panty is mine and no one can use that word without my permission.
now while this argument is an obvious form of reductio ad absurdum ….there is a point where any writer has to ask themselves if they “own” the words they write. you own the space of time assembling those words — but the words themselves?
perception is an important thing in life. we always “borrowed” books from the library. do we only ‘borrow’ words to form expression? are you selling the words, or the time? if it was the time, maybe each book sale should reduce the price of a book?
so when a writer decides to place “copyright” on written words, perhaps they should think about this for a moment: is there such a thing?
or does a perception of owning sentences and blocks of text more easily go under a very particular type of delusion? delusion that expands grandeur itself into a realm where there is no turning back, no getting out of that carnival ride.
do ideas live forever, or are they forever a part of the churning mass of collective conclusions that live only because each is a piece or branch from the one before?
just because you CAN copyright something, does it make sense?